Lobbying Activities

The ESTA spent €300,000 to €350,000 on EU lobbying in 2009 (its most recent declaration in the EU lobbying register). [5]

In recent years, it has argued against tighter rules to protect people against passive smoking,[6] lower taxes for rolling and pipe tobacco [7] and the Europe-wide use of the industry's own labelling system for tar yields from tobacco. [8]

Against the Revised Tobacco Products Directive

In April 2011, ESTA wrote to the European Commission requesting "a meeting with you to discuss the currently ongoing discussions within the Commission assessing the impacts of a possible new Tobacco Products Directive ... It seems to be disregarding that other tobacco products exist, as well as that a substantial number of small medium sized smoking tobacco companies in Europe will experience a significantly higher impact resulting from some of the regulation that is considered." [9]

One of the outcomes ESTA was lobbying for in the new Directive was a lifting of the European ban on Snus. [10]

Criticising the RAND Impact Assessment Report

Like many of the tobacco trade organisations, ESTA was highly critical of Impact Assessment into the Revised Tobacco Products Directive carried out by RAND. ESTA argued that the draft report's "structure and methodology needs substantive improvement," including its lack of differentiation of tobacco products. The trade group objected to words such as "tobacco epidemic", arguing this was an "overtly negative and emotional reference" that gave "little confidence in the ‘objective analysis’ that RAND Europe strives to".[11]

Against Plain Packaging

In May 2011 Peter van der Mark, the Secretary General of ESTA, wrote to the European Commission concerning the Australian government's plans for plain packaging. "ESTA", he wrote, "is concerned about the apparent absence of a firm scientific justification for the measure for cigarettes, its doubtful effectiveness and the absence of any consideration to alternative measures which would be more proportionate."

The letter continued: "The implications for international trade are immense if parties to the Convention would be allowed to represent the function of trademarks mainly in terms of advertising and on such grounds would be allowed to severely restrict the use and expression of trademarks." [12]